Talk:Paper abortion

Orphan/Categories
I removed both, after I added orphans and categories.--Momo Monitor (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

POV
This entire article is a ridiculous screed. I'm tempted to send this for TNT rather than attempt a complete rewrite to free it of POV language, to make sure all the sources actually discuss the topic, etc. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I would also support its deletion, for numerous reasons. For the moment I'm deleting the claim that a Swedish political group is in favor of it -- it was proposed by a sub-group and quickly shot down.  That the author overstated the political weight it held is consistent with the rest of the presentation.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I wrote that the Swedish party LUF discussed it. That is what the news wrote. If you don't agree, feel free to edit it. I will put it back again. --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That is false, you wrote "The Liberal Youth of Sweden party wishs a statutory abortion." Why are you telling me that you wrote that the Swedish party LUF discussed it?  You wrote that they "wish" it.


 * I did edit it -- I took it away. The only reason that anybody published anything about what four or five kids in western Sweden were kicking around as an idea was because it was such a fantastically bad idea.  This is the kind of idea that shows up in Men's Rights Activism groups.  I also can't help but wonder -- do you speak Swedish?  Because it's mysterious to me that you would reinstate the content with its citation when you can't read the source that you're citing.  Triacylglyceride (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Bringing the article in line with WP:NPOV would be a waste of time. You can't clean propaganda. Nuke from orbit. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could come up with some arguments? You are actually just bullying. This is not about propaganda. Maybe you would love to read the guidelines? Wikipedia is about many people writing articles together. Feel free to edit the things you think are wrong. Or maybe you can tell me, which parts are wrong? I used reliable sources for every single statement I did. But of cause, why use arguments, when you just can use a strawman? --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Really disgusting comments you are coming with. It's not about propaganda. It's a word that was highly discussed in my country (Denmark). --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Just maybe you could do what Wikipedia is there for? Edit an article, to make it better? But of cause, why do something useful, when you just can delete an article you don't like and want to 'nuke from orbit'. Sigh. --Momo Monitor (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Articles must conform to Wikipedia policy, and sometimes the effort needed to make a thoroughly policy-noncompliant article comply with policy is less than the effort that would be needed to delete the article and start over. Don't edit other users' comments. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, calling a whole article a ridiculous screed is definitely against the Wikipedia policy. And well, all of this article is based on information, wish I took from newspapers and academic work. Feel free to edit tho. --Momo Monitor (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * And maybe you can tell wish sections you don't like? The introduction might be edited, but is fully neutral and describes the subject. The describtion of Denmark and Sweden are correct. The pro argumentation should be all right too. The con arguments should be written more about. Actually, the patriarchal view and the feminism section are the only too sections wish could be critized. What about we delete them instead? Or just edit them? Instead of deleting a whole article ... --Momo Monitor (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Btw, maybe you want to take a look on the reasons to delete an article?

You actually don't want to delete the article out of one of those points ... --Momo Monitor (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
 * 2) Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
 * 3) Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
 * 4) Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
 * 5) Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
 * 6) Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
 * 7) Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
 * 8) Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * 9) Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
 * 10) Redundant or otherwise useless templates
 * 11) Categories representing overcategorization
 * 12) Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the Non-free policy
 * 13) Any other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
 * 14) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia


 * Actually, it does violate #8, see WP:FRINGE. Triacylglyceride (talk) 05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I started to make a section to talk about all of the issues in this article, but the problem is honestly that there are so many of them. I don't want to sound harsh, but it is so pervasively biased as an article that it is hard to know where to start.  It also has a lot of awkward grammar, typos, and other errors.


 * Here is one way it is biased: "Feminists are very divided on this. Some feminists want equal rights and promote this idea. Other feminists deny it." Are they actually very divided on it?  Is it anything close to an even split?  Or are there just a small number of feminists who are in favor of it?  Similarly, do you see how your way of contrasting feminists who are for and against the idea is biased?  Because it is absurdly biased, and I'm not sure how I can explain it to you if you do not already see it.  Imagine a statement like, "some children have good taste and prefer vanilla ice cream.  Other children prefer chocolate ice cream."  I've implied that children with good taste prefer vanilla ice cream, and that those who prefer chocolate ice cream have bad taste.  Also, your use of the word "deny" is a non-native usage.


 * Here is another way it is biased: "The denial of parenthood meats same contra arguments[11][12] as common abortion did[13]: use birth control or don't have sex at all.[14][15]"


 * Not only does this sentence contain a typo, grammatical errors, and a basic structure that is non-intuitive to native speakers, it also presents the arguments against "paper abortion" in a dismissive, straw-man tone. Did you think that you had done a good job summarizing the arguments against your position?


 * Here is another way: "But there is a huge debate in many countries." How many countries?  How huge of a debate?  You mentioned two countries, and one of them (Sweden), was a proposal by five kids involved in a youth politics group that got media attention because of how it was such a bad idea.  You say "huge debate in many countries," but to me it seems like "a small debate in a handful of countries.  But debated a lot online by men's rights activists."


 * Here is another way: when you say that 7 out of 10 Danes want to support "paper abortion," you cite an article that cites a Gallup poll. The article that you cite also talks about another poll in which 42 percent of Danes would support "paper abortion."  So here you have an article that presents two facts, and you have picked the fact that makes "paper abortion" seem better-supported.  Why did you pick 7/10, instead of 42%?  Did you think you weren't being biased?


 * Did you know that this subject is mentioned as a small part of a couple of articles on Wikipedia? It was also the subject of a court case in the US.  And yet, you didn't link to it from its subsections in other Wikipedia articles, and you didn't include the court case in the US where this legal principle was tested.  Creating an article is hard work, and it takes a lot of research that you don't seem to have done.


 * It would take a massive amount of work to rework this into a presentable article. Since none of us think that this should be an article in the first place, none of us wants to rewrite it. I also don't want to hold your hand through each bias and grammatical error.  That is why it's going to get deleted.  So don't complain of bullying.  You wrote a bad article and posted it without prior experience with editing or creating articles (at least, not on this account).  Wikipedia is inclusive, but don't expect your first article to be a success.  Try contributing to the community (and first try doing it in ways that exclusively in ways that do not advance your point of view), try creating articles on more neutral subjects, and then tackle something like this.


 * Alright, I've spent half an hour on this. That's way too much time.  How soon can we delete?

Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Substantial reliably sourced material for such an article
I think you'll find that there is more than enough reliably sourced material on this subject. I know that scholars such as James Q. Wilson and George Akerlof with Janet Yellen have written on the related phenomenon (and attendant problems) of men assuming such a right based on a woman's right to abortion. I also see that Wikipedia already has some decently sourced material on the subject; ex. Child support (A man's right to choose), Matt Dubay child support case, and Paternal rights and abortion (Opting out). Motsebboh (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) That being said, the article as it presently stands is dismissively smug and one-sided, but I sense that editors who want to quickly get rid of it are being the same. Motsebboh (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It's a little worse than dismissively smug and one-sided -- of the two articles that I checked its citations on, it actively misrepresented their contents. Triacylglyceride (talk) 06:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are using some inflammatory terms here. "actively misrepresented their contents"?  Aren't those, as Popeye would say, "fighting words"?


 * You do realize that sometimes, when someone says they see a terrible bias, and they then engage in an honest discussion of that bias, they walk away from the discussion with the realization that, while there was a bias, it wasn't in the passage they read, but in their own minds? Sometime they find there was some key peice of background information they had never become acquainted with, perhap.  I am not saying I know that, in this particular instance, you are the one with the biased POV.  But I strongly recommend you conduct editorial discussions on the wikipedia with that possibility in mind.  Entering a discussion in attack mode, insisting you know other parties are biasd, turns out to be pretty embarrassing, if you end up realizing you were the biased party all along.


 * However, if you adopt a more collegial tone -- where you aren't accusing the other party, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised on those occasions you realize you were wrong, and they were right. Since you didn't draw a line in the sand, you save yourself the embarrassment of having to back away from an entrenched position.


 * So, the two articles you thought weren't accurately represented -- how about a non accusatory comparison of what you thought they said with what you think the article implied they said? Geo Swan (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, one of the articles said that a Swedish political group did not support a proposal, and Momo Monitor said that the political group "wishs" the proposal. Later, Momo Monitor claimed that they had not said that the political group supported the proposal.
 * For the other article, they cited two polls for Danish support of a policy, and Momo Monitor picked the higher of the two numbers. I cited it as an example of bias, because Momo Monitor was asking for examples of how they were biased.
 * Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to repeat that I found the article quite interesting. I think you need to be reminded that MM is not writing in his or her native language.  Bearing that in mind I think they did a fine job.  The concerns you voiced above?  Valid, but, frankly, insignificant.  They fall short from justifying claims that improving the article was an unsurmountable problem.  They also fall far short of justifying inflammatory language like "dismissively smug" and "actively misrepresented."  For non-native speakers reversing pairs of words that are polar opposites can be both one of the easiest errors for them to make and one of the most damaging.  Fast/slow, in/out, up/down, go/come, on/off, hot/cold, permitted/denied.  Geo Swan (talk) 05:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag removal
After substantial revision, it seems that the NPOV tag is now unnecessary, feel free to undo my edit removing it if you believe that I am in error, and comment here to discuss further NPOV issues. InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Opposition
While I think that the opposition section is all right and well-written, I removed two words: Significant and often. They are biased and try to create a mood against Paper Abortion. So I deleted both words. The citations do not cover it anyway; it was just three journalists writing their personal opinion about paper abortion. They did not say if there was significant or often opposition against this subject. Well, we could of course just write significant opposition and write a significant support to make it unbiased, since both statements are true. But it would be very unspecific and will just fill without giving any gain. So I deleted the biased words. If you look at the Danish section, we can see that 40-70% approves on this subject, while the rest are against it. So there we have specific information. --Momo Monitor (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support
Karen DeCrow, N.O.W. President 1974-1977, wrote a NYT Op-Ed advocating the idea in 1982. https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/magazine/l-no-headline-123813.html Frances Goldscieder has a 1991 Op-Ed article, also supporting the idea, credited with coining the phrase "financial" abortion. https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Goldscheider.html To balance out the "Eurocentric" complaint, US Safe Haven laws could be cited as an existing method by which men could abandon an unwanted child, in theory, though in practice they are only effectively accessible by women, which would tend to conflict with the them of the article that "paper abortions" are for MEN ONLY or some kind of new MRA talking point, rather than something that originated in feminist advocacy for reproductive rights and something women are already able to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.126.15 (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Adoption
Like Évelyne Sullerot says, adoption is a very important issue in this matter.

88.1.39.5 (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The book of Sullerot is a very reliable and important source.

88.1.39.5 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Abortion rate
It would be interesting to look if some don't predict more actual abortions if this practice was legal. There are two other lives involved, that of the woman and that of the child. A woman knowing she'll lack support could feel pressured to find other people or to avoid giving birth (despite the possibility of being less likely to voluntarily avoid contraception too). — Paleo Neonate  – 19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)